...and you are evidently too stupid to understand them. But don't fret - there is always the warm, assuaging, and even subtly erotic voice of a theoretical physicist talking on the radio to make you feel good about yourself.

Carmel:Is this how self proclaimed "enlightened" people talk jupiviv?

What you don't seem to understand is that when you say things like this all you're really doing is revealing yourself as a fraud, though it wouldn't be first time and I'm sure it won't be the last. Furthermore, a physicist has far more to offer me than your simplistic 1+1=2, or a circle can't be a square. As for demonstrating some "deep sounding" examples of absolute truth, I'm still waiting on those...but, frankly I think I'd prefer to read David's thoughts on the matter as he seems to possess a far greater grasp on the matter, but thanks for your time nonetheless :)

David Quinn wrote:We can't jump outside our own neural net and experience what lies beyond. Not even Buddhas can do this.

Why not? If someone is conscious of a neural net then he is "beyond" it.

A fully conscious being is simply one who is fully conscious of reality, which includes the reality that his own consciousness is necessarily limited when it comes to being aware of all the little details in the world.

He may not be able to perceive the "little details", as you say, with his senses. But through logic, it is possible to be aware of the fact that the "I" exists and everything that is not the "I" also exists.

Carmel wrote:What you don't seem to understand is that when you say things like this all you're really doing is revealing yourself as a fraud, though it wouldn't be first time and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I may have been mean, but what I said is 100% true, and you are yet to even respond to what I said. All you've done is talk about how I can't comprehend your answer, which I still haven't seen you post.

As for demonstrating some "deep sounding" examples of absolute truth, I'm still waiting on those...but, frankly I think I'd prefer to read David's thoughts on the matter as he seems to possess a far greater grasp on the matter, but thanks for your time nonetheless :)

I see you still haven't understood the meaning of those simple examples. All definitions are absolute, universal truths, by definition - be they "simple" or complex. A person who denounces the value of any definition just because it's "simple," and thinks that a more "complex" definition is somehow inherently better or more intellectually enriching, is basically an idiot. Unfortunately, you are such a person.

Last edited by jupiviv on Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jupiviv:I may have been mean, but what I said is 100% true, and you are yet to even respond to what I said. All you've done is talk about how I can't comprehend your answer, which I still haven't seen you post.

Carmel:I have no interest in discussing any of this with you, based on your responses to David, it's clear to me that you have little understanding of the philosophies here, you haven't gone beyond rudimentary logic. i.e. 1+1=2, a circle can't be a square.

jupiviv: I see you still haven't understood the meaning of those simple examples.

Carmel wrote:I have no interest in discussing any of this with you, based on your responses to David, it's clear to me that you have little understanding of the philosophies here, you haven't gone beyond rudimentary logic. i.e. 1+1=2, a circle can't be a square.

They are examples meant to prove a point(I edited my last post and explained it), which you haven't understood. I've made quite a few other posts which don't involve saying 1+1=2 or a square circle can't exist.

It also amuses me that you are holding David Quinn in higher regard than me just because he's been nice to you, whereas he's given the same examples I have to make the same argument. David seems to like gossiping pleasantly with you, but I'd just rather be mean and insulting. That's just me, I guess.

jupiviv:It also amuses me that you are holding David Quinn in higher regard than me just because he's been nice to you, whereas he's given the same examples I have to make the same argument.

Carmel:I hold him in higher regard because he is by far your intellectual superior and takes philososhical concepts far above and beyond the level of which you are currently capable. He also demonstrates through word and action a higher degree of wisdom. i.e. We've gotten into a few heated discussion in the past, but he has the capacity to let it go(detachment) and move on. I don't see this ability in you.

jupiviv:David seems to like gossiping pleasantly with you, but I'd just rather be mean and insulting. That's just me, I guess.

Carmel:It is you and it will remain you until you realize that your current mode of communication is neither effective, nor wise.

It's telling that you think you are qualified to judge me when you are doing the exact same things you are accusing me of doing. But I will concede that David Quinn shows more integrity in his "actions" than I do.

Too much for you to accept the reality that Kevin is talking about biological women, huh coach?

It's not that simple Laird.In the World of Laird there appears to be something at stake for Laird in relation to Kevin's position.This 'at stakeness' holds a certain irritability and discontent.

If you could open up about that then we can get access beyond this gestalt of 'holding a gun at someone's head' which has us stuck.

Dennis, when you work out that this is not about me, but about your fear and reluctance to publicly recognise the gross bias and falsity in the collated quotes on women, then get back to me. Until then...

jupiviv wrote:It's telling that you think you are qualified to judge me when you are doing the exact same things you are accusing me of doing. But I will concede that David Quinn shows more integrity in his "actions" than I do.

I'm not convinced that David actually sees potential for true wisdom in Carmel. I think he's just providing good reading material for everyone else that can see where he's coming from with his responses.

He may not be able to perceive the "little details", as you say, with his senses. But through logic, it is possible to be aware of the fact that the "I" exists and everything that is not the "I" also exists.

While this is true, you cannot deny that the presence of consciousness arises with the functions of the brain. Our consciousness is caused by the neural processes of our evolved brains and senses, it does not come from somewhere else. I think this is the point David is making as well.

you cannot prove beyond doubt consciousness arises only when there is a 'brain' to create it. you cannot deny the fact that our consciousness may be a separate being from our complete physical makeup. you cannot deny this fact, simply because i have thought of it. denial of this fact would be futile because it has just as much fact behind it as all the brain sciences does that may prove otherwise with the difference being in evidence. i've provided mental evidence of my theory which is just as reasonable as physical experimentation.

bluerap:I'm not convinced that David actually sees potential for true wisdom in Carmel. I think he's just providing good reading material for everyone else that can see where he's coming from with his responses.

Carmel:smallmindedness and petty gossip and...don't get stuck there or you will never develop your own capacity for "true wisdom".

bluerap:While this is true, you cannot deny that the presence of consciousness arises with the functions of the brain. Our consciousness is caused by the neural processes of our evolved brains and senses, it does not come from somewhere else. I think this is the point David is making as well.

Carmel:yes, that was exactly the point he was to trying make. Our consciousness can't go beyond our limited scope of perceptions, thoughts and memories.

Last edited by Carmel on Sat Nov 27, 2010 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

m4tt_666 wrote:you cannot prove beyond doubt consciousness arises only when there is a 'brain' to create it. you cannot deny the fact that our consciousness may be a separate being from our complete physical makeup.

You're right, these are my views.

To clear up a couple of things, I didn't say that our brain creates our consciousness, but that they arise together. As far as I can see, one cannot exist without the other. Suggesting that the two are completely separate entities sounds like a science fiction to entertain the imagination. It doesn't make much sense beyond that.

i agree, i believe that since we're assaulted constantly with overwhelming physical senses on a recurring basis most people find it impossible to hold the fact that i believe, there to be a separate reality altogether from the physical world as we see, to as you said, provide that support system to allow existence itself, to exist.

David Quinn wrote:Jupiviv is right, actually. Absolute knowledge is indeed defined to be knowledge that is necessarily true in all times and places. It isn't something which is merely true in somes places and not others. It isn't contigent upon the arisal of a particular set of circumstances, or the appearance of particular empirical evidence, or the adoption of a particular perspective, or the consensus of a particular number of people. It is necessarily true for all circumstances, perspectives, and people. It is a form of knowledge that cannot be falsified under any circumstances whatsoever.

The fact that this different type of knowledge exists dawned on me at about 5 years of age, when I realized things like 2+3=3+2=5 would always be true and that it was impossible for anyone to change that. I can still recall the monumental impact this had on me. At the time, everything seemed to be subject to change, seemed to be controlled by grownups, or at least by someone else. No one had made this type of statement true, and so no one could make its truth go away or diminish it. No one had control over it. And now that I knew it, I felt the power of that knowledge. I began looking for other things that hit me with the same feeling of certainty. I was drawn to mathematics from then on. I found that feeling to be telling over the course of my studies. If, for example, I labored over a calculus or physics problem until I reached a solution, and that feeling of certainty did not strike, my results were sometimes in error. But when it did strike, it seemed as if I never was in error. As David points out, most "knowledge" is not absolute. Correspondingly, most knowledge never gives me that feeling of certainty that a rigorous mathematical proof does.

One treats these different types of knowledge differently, I find. Once one has made the necessary effort to acquire the absolute kind of knowledge, no further effort is required. One may recall the knowledge or not recall it; however, if it is ever recalled, its truth is immediately as clear as clear can be. For any other type of knowledge, if circumstances cause it to be recalled, there remains the immediate task of ascertaining if the knowledge, not being absolute, is true in the given circumstances.

All definitions are based on A=A, which is an absolute truth. If a definition does not establish A=A, then it is not a definition, by definition. An example of such a false definition is a square circle. "Square" and "circle" are two different definitions, so they can't be equated with each other.

jupiviv: All definitions are based on A=A, which is an absolute truth. If a definition does not establish A=A, then it is not a definition, by definition. An example of such a false definition is a square circle. "Square" and "circle" are two different definitions, so they can't be equated with each other.

Carmel:yes, but it's easy to establish A=A when you're dealing with simplistic logic like a circle isn't a square. Questions regarding valid definitions inevitably arise along the way when we attempt to turn the philosophic absolute truth of A=A into an "absolute truth" of Ultimate Reality, The Totality, infinity etc.

Carmel wrote:Questions regarding valid definitions inevitably arise along the way when we attempt to turn the philosophic absolute truth of A=A into an "absolute truth" of Ultimate Reality, The Totality, infinity etc.

If we define Ultimate Reality to be "everything" then it is a valid definition. If we define Ultimate Reality to be a pencil, then that is also a valid definition. It is only invalid if you define Ultimate Reality as the feeling of happiness or security, or as some sort of a "whole" which we can't see but is nevertheless "there", and then say that that is identical to everything.